Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: Relax--it's a comedy!
Review: I went to see "Hannibal," the sequel to the unforgettable horror-suspense classic "The Silence of the Lambs," with great anticipation. And was I in for a surprise. I found "Hannibal" to be more of a grotesque comedy than a true horror film. Still, the film has genuine suspense and gross-out thrills.

Anthony Hopkins reprises his role as Hannibal, the cannibalistic serial killer, and he is clearly having fun. Unlike the first film, "Hannibal" begins with the title character free and living the good life in Italy. Julianne Moore replaces Jodie Foster in the pivotal role of FBI agent Clarice Starling, who hunts for Hannibal (and, I might add, she's quite good in the role).

But Hannibal is also being hunted by the agents of Mason Verger, a "reformed" child molester who was repulsively mutilated by Hannibal and who wants revenge. Gary Oldman clearly relishes this outrageous role, and the make-up effects for this character are truly spellbinding. Verger's fiendish plans for Hannibal involve a herd of man-eating pigs. Add to the mix Giancarlo Giannini as an avaricious Italian cop on Hannibal's trail and Ray Liotta as Starling's sleazeball colleague, and you have a truly Jerry Springer-ish collection of oddballs.

Some bemoaned the film's gore, but I found "Hannibal" to be an outrageous good time. In fact, the violence is so absurdly baroque that it is funny--"Hannibal" plays almost like a coolly intelligent spoof of "splatter" films. And the exquisite musical score and locales add to the filmgoer's pleasure quotient.

No, "Hannibal" is not in the same league as "The Silence of the Lambs," which is a true landmark of horror and suspense cinema. But this film is a unique thrill ride of its own.

Rating:
Summary: A BITTER TASTE
Review: For all his cannibalism, ol' Hannibal leaves nothing but the bitter taste of a dissapointing movie in the mouths of the general public. His worst crime is the distinct lack of suspense in the film. Hannibal behind bars, left the viewer with only their imaginations to contemplate the horror he was capable of; but now that he seems to swan around Florence unabaited - he doesnt seem that scary after all.Ridley wants us, it would seem, to be amused by the good doctors gory antics, but the joke's on Mr Scott by the film's final 'infamous' scene where Hannibal's true horror is met by giggling in the cinema - at least that was how it was met at the session I saw. One can understand why Jodie Foster did a 'runner' after she read the script, and it's a pity Anthony Hopkins couldn't contain his appetite for another couple of million bucks. As 'Hannibal' draws the Harris trilogy to a conclusion, the three course meal dissappoints with this final rather sickly dessert- that somehow spoils the main meal that was Silence Of The Lambs.

Rating:
Summary: Gruesome in the extreme.
Review: I understand that the book deals with WHY Dr Lector a brilliant, incisive, and no doubt at one time a kind and gentle man and physician went so insane so as to crave human flesh.
This could no doubt been a wonderfull base to build on but instead this movie ended up being a grossfest with Hannibal convincing the other bad guy at one time to cut his face off as a punishment for his crimes against children, slicing open a Italian detective and pushing him on a type of closeline out to hang over the city like Judas hung from the tree after his betrayal. And the raison d etre, drugging Ray Liotta, cutting open his skull and slowly slicing parts of his brain off, sauting them in a pan and then feeding them to the soon to be lobotomized crooked cop, who in his stupor thinks its delicious.

Yuck. Fooey.

Rating:
Summary: Great DVD mastering; fantastic dirction/music/editing
Review: The title ought to say it all. I was extremely impressed by the attention paid to the DVD (as another reviewer mentioned) by MGM - it's nearly flawless. Some parts of the film are deviant - even grossly disgusting - but that's the point. Hannibal is a diseased guy, and graphical respresentation is how the depiction of the character's mental state was handled. I thought it done quite well, though possibly a crutch properly reinforcing the merely acceptable screenplay/writing. The musical score is brilliant and one of the reasons that I gave the movie all five stars.

Not a perfect film by any means. But I certainly enjoyed it.

Rating:
Summary: HANNIBAL DISHES UP A SMORGASBOARD OF HORROR
Review: I loved SILENCE OF THE LAMBS & when I read the book of HANNIBAL a while back I started pining for the movie release. HANNIBAL surpasses its predecessor in terms of panache & graphic gore. Anyone expecting Oscar material will be disappointed (& nauseated) with this, but I loved it. Lecter is relatively "normal" in this movie, which I feel makes him all the more terrifying. The plot revolves around one of Lecter's surviving victims, Mason Verger (the always excellent Gary Oldman, in gruesome makeup) plotting to capture Hannibal & feed him to his carnivorous wild pigs, as payment to Lecter feeding his face to a pack of dogs. When Clarice Starling (Juliannne Moore) learns of this she sets out to warn Lecter. Ridley Scott scores another bullseye after his success with GLADIATOR. His expected visual style complements Hopkins' performance well. Moore meanwhile, manages to step into the role of Starling and make it her own. My only quibble is that Oldman had his name removed from the credits supposedly because he wanted second billing.And for you gorehounds there are several gruesome scenes to savor, including Hopkins introducing Ray Liotta to the pleasures of "brain food". Yum.

Rating:
Summary: Better than the book; even better on DVD
Review: (3 and 1/2 stars) Free of the novel's lousy ending, the film version of "Hannibal" contains enough suspense and atmosphere to make it worth a viewing. Agent Starling's detective work is fairly involving, and some of the scenes are remarkable in the way they are constructed and their intensity. I'm thinking particularly of the "Cat and Mouse" scene where Starling pursues Lecter through the shopping mall. Even while I was repulsed by the "Dinner" scene near the end -- the only scene that justifies the kind of "gross-out" descriptions some critics gave the movie, it fit in well with the Lecter characters actions elsewhere and gave a measure of comeupance to Ray Liotta's character (certainly beyond what he deserved!). Taken as a whole, it was an entertaining flick, well directed by Ridley Scott and well acted, but nowhere near as great as "Silence of the Lambs."

As for the double-disc DVD edition, the director's commentary on the "feature" disc is fairly typical of such DVD commentaries. It does contain several interesting items of info. The 2nd "special features" disc is a cornucopia of background details, including dozens of movie poster variations, the usual "cast & crew" dossiers, 14 deleted or alternate scenes, etc. Definitely check out the "alternate ending" with Scott's comments, and decide for youself if you agree with the ending chosen for the film.

Rating:
Summary: Ultimately better than the book!
Review: Actually, I give it 2.5 stars, but Amazon doesn't let us use a ten-point system.

I first rented Manhunter in the late '80s. Years later, when I saw Silence of the Lambs in the theater, I recognized the name of the doctor and realized that these two works were somehow related, and eventually ended up reading all four of Thomas Harris' novels and seeing all five film adaptations, of which Manhunter is my personal favorite.

I resisted the urge to buy Hannibal in hardcover, and forced my self to wait for the paperback; once I started reading, I could hardly put it down! I plowed through the novel in about ten days, anticipating the ending as the various plot elements moved forward at breakneck speed, tensely and gradually weaving themselves together. Then I got to the last fifty pages or so, and let's just say Ted Tally gave this story a far better ending than Thomas Harris did, much as Red Dragon would have been a better novel if it had ended about fifteen pages earlier.

As I awaited the paperback, I heard rumors that Jodi Foster had turned down playing Starling in the film version of Hannibal because she didn't think it was true to the character. Frankly, I think it's awfully arrogant and presumptuous when an actor thinks he has more insight into a character he's been hired to play than does the author who created the character in the first place! But once I finished reading the paperback, it seemed to me that Foster had made the right choice, if the rumors about her not liking the ending were true. On the other hand, though, since Ted Tally scripted a superior ending, it's too bad she didn't show up. Moore does the best she can with what she's been given, though, so it seems unfair to compare her performance to what Foster's might have been like.

Other than the ending, and a one-page explanation of Hannibal the Cannibal's origin, the film also has to change around a number of the novel's plot elements in order to translate from page to screen. Unfortunately, some of the best parts also got lost in the translation. The Mason Verger of the novel would have required CGI or an animatronic puppet, plus a voice actor. Instead, the character is literally fleshed out more for the film, and the role then given to a well-known actor in some serious make-up -- and somehow, something is lost. It's not Gary Oldman's fault, mind you, the character just loses some menace in translation.

Gone also is Mason's sister, and her subplot, and a much more interesting fate for him as well. Verger's attorney and nurse are combined into a single character, and again, we lose something. Liotta, who has been much better in some of his films, fails to come through on playing a character that was already just barely believable enough to be acceptable in the novel -- although to be fair this might be Ridley Scott's or Ted Tally's fault. And Crawford has been removed completely, although his part in the novel was rather small.

Also, the horror, tension and suspense that were so palpably present in the novel -- and that made it such a page-turner -- have been replaced with blood, gore, guts, and graphic violence. Too bad, but I admit that it would have been pretty hard to recreate the mood and atmosphere of the novel on film in the first place, and while the slashings aren't an adequate replacement, they really aren't any worse than a lot of other mainstream contemporary films, so I'll give Scott a bit of a pass there. (Then again, he did make the horror, tension and suspense work in Alien, so why not in Hannibal...?)

Let's face it, the only reason Manhunter got "re-imagined" as Red Dragon was because some perverted completists thought it was an abomination to have a version without Hopkins as Lector. Upon hearing this, the film already had a strike against in it in my book, having seen how awful Tony looked with shoe-polish in his hair during that flashback scene with Gary Oldman in Hannibal -- and we all know the camera lens used for that sequence was chosen at least as much for taking twenty years off of Hopkins (unsuccessfully, I might add) as it was for making it appear a hazy, drug-dazed memory of Mason Verger. (Tony was getting too old to play Lector in Hannibal, and he WAS too old to play him in Red Dragon, especially given that the story takes place ten years earlier.)

Manhunter's Brian Cox had a different take on the Lector character than Hopkins, but it was ultimately A) closer to the novel's depiction and B) more realistic and believable. Sorry, Tony, but you have to admit, as great as your performance was in Silence of the Lambs, Lector comes off much better when the actor playing him resists the urge to chew scenery -- no pun intended.... In Hannibal, however, Hopkins manages to deliver a more than adequate performance, even if it isn't Oscar-worthy.

Over all, Scott's direction works, as does the score, both especially so in the final scenes of the film -- you know, that part where Tally so greatly improved upon Harris? Seriously, if you read the book but hated the ending, don't be afraid to give the film a try. And if you liked the movie, you'll like the book even better -- just do yourself a favor and stop reading when it becomes obvious that it isn't going to end like the movie does -- you'll thank me....

PS: Why is it that when most people review books and films on Amazon, A) they seem not to notice that most of what they say has already been said in the hundreds of other reviews previously posted, and B) they seem to feel obligated to recount the entire plot, point by point, spoiler by spoiler, in excruciating detail, instead of just giving the rest of us a simple idea of why we might like or dislike the book or film in question?!

Rating:
Summary: MAJOR sell-out
Review: This is not a suspense-drama like "Silence of the Lambs;" it's a horror movie. As a horror flick, "Hannibal" wins the 4 stars. That this sequel fails to retain the genre of the original film is "disappointment #1."

Losing credibility as a drama makes "Hannibal" susceptible to the humor that we attach to the "horror" genre. It had me rooting for the monster. This led to "disappointment #2:" The monster let me down by letting the heroine tame him.

Anthony Hopkins and the other actors captured their characters convincingly. The cast showcased REAL TALENT in the face of a plot that lost contact with reality. An impossible plot is on par for the horror genre, but a sold-out monster is not.

I saw "Hannibal" on TV, so I was spared the truckloads of pulpy gore that it reputedly dumps on moviegoers. Would I watch it uncut (pun!)? Yeah, but with reservations.

In keeping with the "horror" genre, the final scene would have been better served (pun again) if a "flying knives" Oriental chef-style ending had dispatched the heroine. Instead we get a pussy-whipped monster.

Parting shot: "Am I on a roll or what?" could have been asked by an FBI agent in the movie. Save it for the parody...

Encore: Was that Michael Jackson without his surgical mask?

Rating:
Summary: 3.2 out of 5
Review: After ten years, the world waited eagerly for the sequel to the legendary THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. Finally, they have it - although I'm sure it's not at all what they expected. HANNIBAL is the result of what most will see as a Ridley Scott-Anthony Hopkins-Hans Zimmer collaboration. Adapted from Thomas Harris' best-selling (although much weaker) novel, HANNIBAL follows only the basic plot of the novel. Anthony Hopkins returns to his Oscar-winning role as cannibal genius Dr. Hannibal Lecter, who is now roaming freely in Italy. However, after many years he decides he'd like to come out of retirement; without spoiling any "surprises", he attempts to make contact with FBI agent Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore, taking over from Jodie Foster), while running from his only surviving victim's (Gary Oldman) assassins. Hopkins' performance is great and yet you can't help laughing at Dr. Lecter, so polite and yet the deadliest man alive; Moore tries her hardest, but she comes nowhere near close to taking up where Foster previously stood. There is also a terrific score by Hans Zimmer; the highlight of the film, of course, however, is Scott's directing. It may be the absolute weakest sequel THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS could have, but HANNIBAL is still a frightening and effective horror thriller.

Rating:
Summary: HANNIBAL DISHES UP A SMORGASBOARD OF HORROR
Review: I loved SILENCE OF THE LAMBS & when I read the book of HANNIBAL a while back I started pining for the movie release. HANNIBAL surpasses its predecessor in terms of panache & graphic gore. Anyone expecting Oscar material will be disappointed (& nauseated) with this, but I loved it. Lecter is relatively "normal" in this movie, which I feel makes him all the more terrifying. The plot revolves around one of Lecter's surviving victims, Mason Verger (the always excellent Gary Oldman, in gruesome makeup) plotting to capture Hannibal & feed him to his carnivorous wild pigs, as payment to Lecter feeding his face to a pack of dogs. When Clarice Starling (Juliannne Moore) learns of this she sets out to warn Lecter. Ridley Scott scores another bullseye after his success with GLADIATOR. His expected visual style complements Hopkins' performance well. Moore meanwhile, manages to step into the role of Starling and make it her own. My only quibble is that Oldman had his name removed from the credits supposedly because he wanted second billing.And for you gorehounds there are several gruesome scenes to savor, including Hopkins introducing Ray Liotta to the pleasures of "brain food". Yum.